DOCSLIB.ORG

Supplementary Content for "Design and Evolution in Institutional Development: the Insignificance of the English Bill of Rights", by Peter Murrell

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supplementary Content for Supplementary Content for "Design and Evolution in Institutional Development: The Insignificance of the English Bill of Rights", by Peter Murrell This file of Supplementary Content contains four elements: 1. An extended version of "Table 1: Precedent and Survival in the Clauses of the Bill of Rights " 2. An extended version of "Table 2: Precedent and Survival in the Clauses of the Act of Settlement". 3. An extended version of "Table 3: Data series: definitions, sources and summary statistics" 4. The "Methodological Appendix: Estimating structural breaks in growth rates" Full Version of Table 1: Precedent and Survival in the Clauses of the Bill of Rights Selection? Repealed, General comments, including on limited, or in force the relevance to property rights Clause1 Inheritance or novelty? unconditionally? and government finance or to religion and foreign policy. "William and Mary…be declared king and There was a Parliamentary role in the replacement Act of Settlement, 1701, queen of England…" of Monarchs in 1327, 1399, 1483, 1485, reaffirmed Parliamentary 1649/1660.2 The Divine Right of Kings had fallen role in determining with Charles I's head.3 William was effectively succession. King well before this measure was passed, as a result of successful invasion, popular support, and the flight of James II. Parliament's role in successions was already assumed by all, using the precedents of 1399 and 1660.4 1 'William and Mary, 1688: An Act declareing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Setleing the Succession of the Crowne. [Chapter II. Rot. Parl. pt. 3. nu. 1.]', Statutes of the Realm: volume 6: 1685-94 (1819), pp. 142-145. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=46322 Date accessed: 11 July 2009. 2 1327: Parliament forces Edward II to abdictate the throne; 1399: Richard II forced to resign by Henry IV and Parliament declares a vacancy and legislates on the successor; 1483: Parliament plays a role in declaring Edward V to be illegitimate and endorsing Richard III; 1485: Henry VII calls on Parliament to endorse his accession formally; 1649: Parliament removes Charles I; 1660: Parliament's role fundamental in the restoration. 3 McIlwain (1910, p.109, p.352) 4 Horwitz (1977, pp. 6-8). The precedent of 1399 was important in the parliamentary debates, since Richard II was viewed has having resigned the crown and government and thus allowed Parliament to declare a vacancy, in a situation with rough parallels to 1689. (Cherry 1956, p. 399) Selection? Repealed, General comments, including on limited, or in force the relevance to property rights Clause1 Inheritance or novelty? unconditionally? and government finance or to religion and foreign policy. "all and every person and persons that is, are Acts of 1673 and 1678 established this condition Act of Settlement, 1701, The most innovative of all the measures or shall be reconciled to or shall hold for Parliament and monarch's servants.5 The Act reinforced Parliament's in the Bill.12 The converse of the communion with the see or Church of Rome, of 1673 caused the resignation from government of right to use religion to set doctrine of cuius regio, eius religio,13 or shall profess the popish religion, or shall James Duke of York, later James II, and so set the line of succession.9 dominant in Europe until that time, but marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for precedent for this clause of the Bill of Rights,6 This clause has survived effectively not applicable in England by ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy which extended that Act to monarch. The until today, with attempts 1688. Three previous elections (1679- the crown and government of this declaration by the monarch was that he/she was not at change only arising in 1681) had each led to a Commons realm…that every king and queen of this a Catholic and was to be understood (using the the twentieth century.10 majority that favored such a law.14 The realm [shall] make, subscribe and audibly phrasing from the 1678 Act) in the "plain and Repeal of marriage bar act mentioned in this clause is "An Act repeat the declaration mentioned in the ordinary sens of the words…as they are commonly suggested in 2009.11 for the more effectual preserving the statute made in [1678]" understood by English protestants…"7 This king's person and government by declaration originates in measures of the Long disabling papists from sitting in either Parliament in 1643.8 House of Parliament" of 1678.15 5 Test Acts (1673, 1678); Maer, (2009, p. 9). 6 Carruthers, (1996, p. 44) 7 Maer (2009, p. 4) 8 Maer (2009, p. 9) 9 Maer (2009) 10 Maer (2008); Maer (2009) 11 See Royal Marriages and Succession of the Crown (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill, 2009-08 12 Jones (1992, p.29) ; Horwitz,(1977); Morris (1998 p. 25) 13 Jones (1992, p. 29) 14 Miller (1992, p.60) 15 Refers to Test Act of 1678; see Statutes of the Realm (1819b) Table 1, page 2 Selection? Repealed, General comments, including on limited, or in force the relevance to property rights Clause1 Inheritance or novelty? unconditionally? and government finance or to religion and foreign policy. "That the pretended power of suspending the As early as 1392, the Commons rejected Richard Unquestioned acceptance. Suspending never viewed as above laws or the execution of laws by regal II's use of suspension.16 Controversial uses in the common law property rights; it could not authority without consent of Parliament is Stuart period focused only on religious issues. be used in dispute between two citizens; illegal." Judges in 1662, 1673, and 1688 questioned the it could not be used to raise revenues.22 legality of the suspending power even in religious "..neither Charles nor James revived the matters.17 In 1673 Charles II accepted that he had prerogative devices used by their father no right to suspend laws affecting property, rights, to raise money without Parliament's or liberties.18 In 1663 and 1673 the Commons consent."23 By the time of the asserted that statutes could only be suspended by Restoration settlement, 1660, "The king statute, and Charles did not challenge this and did could now raise money only in ways not try to suspend again after 1673.19 At that time, approved by Parliament and Englishmen Charles acknowledged that his attempt to suspend would possess all the rights accorded by was illegal.20 James II did not claim that he had a the common law."24 "Charles II and right to the suspending power.21 James II, in turn, repeatedly gave assurances that they would never invade their subjects' property."25 16 Maitland (1931, p. 306). 17 Kenyon (1966, p. 40, p. 402, p. 424) , Edie (1985, p. 217, p. 222) 18 Jones (1992, p. 15); Kenyon (1966, p. 409) 19 Kenyon (1966, p. 402); Miller (2000, p. 165) 20 Maitland (1931 p. 305). 21 Schwoerer (1981, p. 64) ; Miller (2000, p. 165) 22 Edie (1985, p.199), Maitland (1931 p. 180). 23 Jones (1992, p. 15) 24 Miller (1992, p. 56) 25 Nenner (1992, p. 92) . Table 1, page 3 Selection? Repealed, General comments, including on limited, or in force the relevance to property rights Clause1 Inheritance or novelty? unconditionally? and government finance or to religion and foreign policy. "That the pretended power of dispensing Pragmatic tool developed to solve practical Some uncontroverial Since the dispensing power only allowed with laws or the execution of laws by regal problems quickly when Parliaments met violations. A controversial the King to forgo penalties assigned in authority, as it hath been assumed and irregularly. 1584 case: King could not dispense one occurred in 1766, statutes specifically to the King's exercised of late, is illegal; Common Law.26 1602 Case of Monopolies: when George III dispensed discretion,35 the dispensing power was [late additions to the Bill] no dispensation by dispensing could not negate intent of statute.27 a law while Parliament was not relevant to taxing, spending, and non obstante of or to any statute or any part 1662: Parliament refused to give Charles II general out of session in order to property rights. Common law property thereof shall be allowed...except a dispensing power, even on religious issues.28 In lessen civil disorder over rights could not be dispensed.36 dispensation be allowed of in such statute... 1662, Parliament prevented dispensing by naming grain prices. When Dispensing could not be used in dispute Provided that no charter or grant or pardon an act as a public nuisance in a statute, thus Parliament was next in between two citizens.37 King could not granted before the three and twentieth day of invoking old law, since a nuisance is a malum in session, it continued dispense statutes for the public good, and October in the year of our Lord one se. 29 1674 case: Courts confirmed that Parliament George's measures while could not license activities specifically thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be can stop dispensing by declaring something a declaring dispensing defined as harms by a statute.38 Charles any ways impeached or invalidated by this malum in se.30 1674 case: courts confirmed that illegal. This was no more II and James II used dispensing only to Act" dispensing could not take away a private right.31 than a restatement of the pardon punishments for religious acts.39 1686 case: dispensing power ruled legal for Bill of Rights.34 Notably, Parliament used its funding religious penal laws.32 Widespread agreement that power to block attempts of Elizabeth I, the King had right to dispense occasionally on James I, Charles I, and Charles II to religious matters.33 dispense.40 26 Edie (1985, p.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE LEGACY of the MAGNA CARTA MAGNA CARTA 1215 the Magna Carta Controlled the Power Government Ruled with the Consent of Eventually Spreading Around the Globe
    THE LEGACY OF THE MAGNA CARTA MAGNA CARTA 1215 The Magna Carta controlled the power government ruled with the consent of eventually spreading around the globe. of the King for the first time in English the people. The Magna Carta was only Reissues of the Magna Carta reminded history. It began the tradition of respect valid for three months before it was people of the rights and freedoms it gave for the law, limits on government annulled, but the tradition it began them. Its inclusion in the statute books power, and a social contract where the has lived on in English law and society, meant every British lawyer studied it. PETITION OF RIGHT 1628 Sir Edward Coke drafted a document King Charles I was not persuaded by By creating the Petition of Right which harked back to the Magna Carta the Petition and continued to abuse Parliament worked together to and aimed to prevent royal interference his power. This led to a civil war, and challenge the King. The English Bill with individual rights and freedoms. the King ultimately lost power, and his of Rights and the Constitution of the Though passed by the Parliament, head! United States were influenced by it. HABEAS CORPUS ACT 1679 The writ of Habeas Corpus gives imprisonment. In 1697 the House of Habeas Corpus is a writ that exists in a person who is imprisoned the Lords passed the Habeas Corpus Act. It many countries with common law opportunity to go before a court now applies to everyone everywhere in legal systems. and challenge the lawfulness of their the United Kingdom.
    [Show full text]
  • The Original Meaning of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause, the Right of Natural Liberty, and Executive Discretion
    William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 29 (2020-2021) Issue 3 The Presidency and Individual Rights Article 4 March 2021 The Original Meaning of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause, the Right of Natural Liberty, and Executive Discretion John Harrison Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Legal History Commons, President/Executive Department Commons, and the United States History Commons Repository Citation John Harrison, The Original Meaning of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause, the Right of Natural Liberty, and Executive Discretion, 29 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 649 (2021), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol29/iss3/4 Copyright c 2021 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION CLAUSE, THE RIGHT OF NATURAL LIBERTY, AND EXECUTIVE DISCRETION John Harrison* The Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause of Article I, Section 9, is primarily a limit on Congress’s authority to authorize detention by the executive. It is not mainly con- cerned with the remedial writ of habeas corpus, but rather with the primary right of natural liberty. Suspensions of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are statutes that vest very broad discretion in the executive to decide which individuals to hold in custody. Detention of combatants under the law of war need not rest on a valid suspen- sion, whether the combatant is an alien or a citizen of the United States. The Suspension Clause does not affirmatively require that the federal courts have any jurisdiction to issue the writ of habeas corpus, and so does not interfere with Congress’s general control over the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
    [Show full text]
  • What If the Founders Had Not Constitutionalized the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus?
    THE COUNTERFACTUAL THAT CAME TO PASS: WHAT IF THE FOUNDERS HAD NOT CONSTITUTIONALIZED THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS? AMANDA L. TYLER* INTRODUCTION Unlike the other participants in this Symposium, my contribution explores a constitutional counterfactual that has actually come to pass. Or so I will argue it has. What if, this Essay asks, the Founding generation had not constitutionalized the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus? As is explored below, in many respects, the legal framework within which we are detaining suspected terrorists in this country today—particularly suspected terrorists who are citizens1—suggests that our current legal regime stands no differently than the English legal framework from which it sprang some two-hundred-plus years ago. That framework, by contrast to our own, does not enshrine the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus as a right enjoyed by reason of a binding and supreme constitution. Instead, English law views the privilege as a right that exists at the pleasure of Parliament and is, accordingly, subject to legislative override. As is also shown below, a comparative inquiry into the existing state of detention law in this country and in the United Kingdom reveals a notable contrast—namely, notwithstanding their lack of a constitutionally- based right to the privilege, British citizens detained in the United Kingdom without formal charges on suspicion of terrorist activities enjoy the benefit of far more legal protections than their counterparts in this country. The Essay proceeds as follows: Part I offers an overview of key aspects of the development of the privilege and the concept of suspension, both in England and the American Colonies, in the period leading up to ratification of the Suspension Clause as part of the United States Constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • Habeas Corpus Act 1679
    Status: Point in time view as at 02/04/2006. Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Habeas Corpus Act 1679. (See end of Document for details) Habeas Corpus Act 1679 1679 CHAPTER 2 31 Cha 2 An Act for the better secureing the Liberty of the Subject and for Prevention of Imprisonments beyond the Seas. X1Recital that Delays had been used by Sheriffs in making Returns of Writs of Habeas Corpus, &c. WHEREAS great Delayes have beene used by Sheriffes Goalers and other Officers to whose Custody any of the Kings Subjects have beene committed for criminall or supposed criminall Matters in makeing Returnes of Writts of Habeas Corpus to them directed by standing out an Alias and Pluries Habeas Corpus and sometimes more and by other shifts to avoid their yeilding Obedience to such Writts contrary to their Duty and the knowne Lawes of the Land whereby many of the Kings Subjects have beene and hereafter may be long detained in Prison in such Cases where by Law they are baylable to their great charge and vexation. Annotations: Editorial Information X1 Abbreviations or contractions in the original form of this Act have been expanded into modern lettering in the text set out above and below. Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1 Short title given by Short Titles Act 1896 (c. 14) [I.] Sheriff, &c. within Three Days after Service of Habeas Corpus, with the Exception of Treason and Felony, as and under the Regulations herein mentioned, to bring up the Body before the Court to which the Writ is returnable; and certify the true Causes of Imprisonment.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law Act 1967 (C
    Criminal Law Act 1967 (c. 58) 1 SCHEDULE 4 – Repeals (Obsolete Crimes) Document Generated: 2021-04-04 Status: This version of this schedule contains provisions that are prospective. Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Criminal Law Act 1967, SCHEDULE 4. (See end of Document for details) SCHEDULES SCHEDULE 4 Section 13. REPEALS (OBSOLETE CRIMES) Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1 The text of S. 10(2), S. 13(2), Sch. 2 paras. 3, 4, 6, 10, 12(2), 13(1)(a)(c)(d), 14, Sch. 3 and Sch. 4 is in the form in which it was originally enacted: it was not reproduced in Statutes in Force and does not reflect any amendments or repeals which may have been made prior to 1.2.1991. PART I ACTS CREATING OFFENCES TO BE ABOLISHED Chapter Short Title Extent of Repeal 3 Edw. 1. The Statute of Westminster Chapter 25. the First. (Statutes of uncertain date — Statutum de Conspiratoribus. The whole Act. 20 Edw. 1). 28 Edw. 1. c. 11. (Champerty). The whole Chapter. 1 Edw. 3. Stat. 2 c. 14. (Maintenance). The whole Chapter. 1 Ric. 2. c. 4. (Maintenance) The whole Chapter. 16 Ric. 2. c. 5. The Statute of Praemunire The whole Chapter (this repeal extending to Northern Ireland). 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. The Ecclesiastical Appeals Section 2. Act 1532. Section 4, so far as unrepealed. 25 Hen. 8. c. 19. The Submission of the Clergy Section 5. Act 1533. The Appointment of Bishops Section 6. Act 1533. 25 Hen. 8. c.
    [Show full text]
  • 949 You Don't Know What You've
    YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’VE GOT ‘TIL IT’S GONE 949 YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’VE GOT ‘TIL IT’S GONE: THE RULE OF LAW IN CANADA — PART IIh JACK WATSON* This article is the second part of an article that was Cet article constitue la deuxième partie d’un article printed in the Alberta Law Review, Volume 52, Issue paru à 689 du numéro 3, du volume 52 de la revue 3 at 689. In this part, the article explores how the rule Alberta Law Review. Dans cette partie-ci, l’auteur of law has found expression in Canada. It defines the explore de quelle manière la primauté du droit se major elements and characteristics of the rule of law. manifeste au Canada. Il détermine les principaux It then goes on to explore how the different branches éléments et principales caractéristiques de cette of government are affected and constrained by the rule primauté. L’auteur examine comment les divers of law. The role of the courts in upholding the rule of organes du gouvernement sont concernés et restreints law is emphasized, as well as the importance of par cette primauté. On y souligne le rôle des tribunaux judicial independence. pour confirmer la primauté du droit ainsi que l’importance de l’indépendance judiciaire. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. RULE OF LAW AS EXPRESSED BY CANADA ........................ 949 II. ELEMENTS OF THE RULE OF LAW IN CANADA ..................... 955 A. COMMON ELEMENTS AFFECTING GOVERNANCE ............... 956 B. ELEMENTS AFFECTING THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ............................... 969 C. ELEMENTS AFFECTING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ..............................
    [Show full text]
  • Brief Amici Curiae of Legal Historians Listed Herein in Support of Respondent, I.N.S
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2001 Brief Amici Curiae of Legal Historians Listed Herein in Support of Respondent, I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, No. 00-767 (U.S. Mar. 27, 2001), . James Oldham Georgetown University Law Center Docket No. 00-767 This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/scb/63 This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/scb Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Immigration Law Commons, and the Legal History Commons United States Supreme Court Amicus Brief. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Petitioner, v. Enrico ST. CYR, Respondent. No. 00-767. March 27, 2001. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF LEGAL HISTORIANS LISTED HEREIN IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT Timothy G. Nelson Four Times Square New York, New York 10036 (212) 735-2193 Douglas W. Baruch Michael J. Anstett Consuelo J. Hitchcock David B. Wiseman Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 639-7368 James Oldham Counsel of Record St. Thomas More Professor of Law & Legal History Georgetown University Law Center 600 New Jersey Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 662-9000 Michael J. Wishnie 161 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10016 (212) 998-6430 AMICI Affiliations listed for identification purposes only. J.H. Baker Downing Professor of the Laws of England St.
    [Show full text]
  • Originalism and a Forgotten Conflict Over Martial Law
    Copyright 2019 by Bernadette Meyler Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 113, No. 6 ORIGINALISM AND A FORGOTTEN CONFLICT OVER MARTIAL LAW Bernadette Meyler ABSTRACT—This Symposium Essay asks what a largely forgotten conflict over habeas corpus and martial law in mid-eighteenth-century New York can tell us about originalist methods of constitutional interpretation. The episode, which involved Abraham Yates, Jr.—later a prominent Antifederalist—as well as Lord Loudoun, the commander of the British forces in America, and New York Acting Governor James De Lancey, furnishes insights into debates about martial law prior to the Founding and indicates that they may have bearing on originalist interpretations of the Suspension Clause. It also demonstrates how the British imperial context in which the American colonies were situated shaped discussions about rights in ways that originalism should address. In particular, colonists argued with colonial officials both explicitly and implicitly about the extent to which statutes as well as common law applied in the colonies. These contested statutory schemes should affect how we understand constitutional provisions: for example, they might suggest that statutes pertaining to martial law should be added to those treating habeas corpus as a backdrop against which to interpret the Suspension Clause. Furthermore, the conflict showed the significance to members of the Founding generation of the personnel applying law, whether military or civilian, rather than the substantive law applied; this emphasis could also be significant
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law Act 1967
    Status: This version of this Act contains provisions that are prospective. Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Criminal Law Act 1967. (See end of Document for details) Criminal Law Act 1967 1967 CHAPTER 58 An Act to amend the law of England and Wales by abolishing the division of crimes into felonies and misdemeanours and to amend and simplify the law in respect of matters arising from or related to that division or the abolition of it; to do away (within or without England and Wales) with certain obsolete crimes together with the torts of maintenance and champerty; and for purposes connected therewith. [21st July 1967] PART I FELONY AND MISDEMEANOUR Annotations: Extent Information E1 Subject to s. 11(2)-(4) this Part shall not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland see s. 11(1) 1 Abolition of distinction between felony and misdemeanour. (1) All distinctions between felony and misdemeanour are hereby abolished. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, on all matters on which a distinction has previously been made between felony and misdemeanour, including mode of trial, the law and practice in relation to all offences cognisable under the law of England and Wales (including piracy) shall be the law and practice applicable at the commencement of this Act in relation to misdemeanour. [F12 Arrest without warrant. (1) The powers of summary arrest conferred by the following subsections shall apply to offences for which the sentence is fixed by law or for which a person (not previously convicted) may under or by virtue of any enactment be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years [F2(or might be so sentenced but for the restrictions imposed by 2 Criminal Law Act 1967 (c.
    [Show full text]
  • Judiciary Rising: Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom
    Copyright 2014 by Erin F. Delaney Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 108, No. 2 JUDICIARY RISING: CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM Erin F. Delaney ABSTRACT—Britain is experiencing a period of dramatic change that challenges centuries-old understandings of British constitutionalism. In the past fifteen years, the British Parliament enacted a quasi-constitutional bill of rights; devolved legislative power to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland; and created a new Supreme Court. British academics debate how each element of this transformation can be best understood: is it consistent with political constitutionalism and historic notions of parliamentary sovereignty, or does it usher in a new regime that places external, rule-of- law-based limits on Parliament? Much of this commentary examines these changes in a piecemeal fashion, failing to account for the systemic factors at play in the British system. This Article assesses the cumulative force of the many recent constitutional changes, shedding new light on the changing nature of the British constitution. Drawing on the U.S. literature on federalism and judicial power, the Article illuminates the role of human rights and devolution in the growing influence of the U.K. Supreme Court. Whether a rising judiciary will truly challenge British notions of parliamentary sovereignty is as yet unknown, but scholars and politicians should pay close attention to the groundwork being laid. AUTHOR—Assistant Professor, Northwestern University School of Law. For helpful conversations during a transatlantic visit at a very early stage of this project, I am grateful to Trevor Allan, Lord Hope, Charlie Jeffery, Lord Collins, and Stephen Tierney.
    [Show full text]
  • Habeas Corpus in Times of Emergency: a Historical and Comparative View
    Pace University DigitalCommons@Pace Pace International Law Review Online Companion School of Law 4-2010 Habeas Corpus in Times of Emergency: A Historical and Comparative View Brian Farrell University of Iowa College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilronline Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Brian Farrell, Habeas Corpus in Times of Emergency: A Historical and Comparative View, Pace Int’l L. Rev. Online Companion, Apr. 2010, at 74. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace International Law Review Online Companion by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PACE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW ONLINE COMPANION Volume 1, Number 9 April 2010 HABEAS CORPUS IN TIMES OF EMERGENCY: A HISTORICAL AND COMPARATIVE VIEW Brian R. Farrell The right to a judicial determination of the legality of an individu- al‟s detention, commonly known as the right to habeas corpus, is consi- dered to be one of the most fundamental guarantees of personal liberty. By allowing an independent judge to review the basis of a person‟s de- tention and order the detainee‟s release if the grounds are unlawful, ha- beas corpus serves as a bulwark against arbitrary arrest, torture, and extrajudicial killings.1 This right, whose evolution was largely driven by historic struggles to impose limits on the power of the monarch, is today widely protected in domestic and international law.2 J.D., University of Iowa College of Law (1998); LL.M., National University of Ireland, Galway (2002).
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    Nos. 06-1195 and 06-1196 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States LAKHDAR BOUMEDIENE ET AL., Petitioners, v. GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. KHALED A. F. AL ODAH, NEXT FRIEND OF FAWZI KHALID ADBULLAH FAHAD AL ODAH, ET AL., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL. On Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit BRIEF FOR THE COMMONWEALTH LAWYERS ASSOCIATION AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONERS SIR SYDNEY KENTRIDGE, Q.C. JOHN TOWNSEND RICH* Brick Court Chambers STEPHEN J. POLLAK 7-8 Essex Street GOODWIN PROCTER LLP London WC2R 3LD 901 New York Avenue, N.W. 44 207 379 3550 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 346-4000 COLIN NICHOLLS, Q.C. TIMOTHY OTTY, Q.C. 3 Raymond Buildings 20 Essex Street London WC1R 5BH London WC2R 3AL 44 207 400 6400 44 207 842 1200 Attorneys for the Commonwealth Lawyers Association August 24, 2007 *Counsel of Record TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..................................................ii INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE................................ 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ..................................... 2 ARGUMENT.......................................................................... 4 I. The origins and history of the writ of habeas corpus illustrate its importance, the swift and im- perative remedy it represents, and the breadth of protection it affords. .................................................... 4 II. As a matter of English law the writ of habeas corpus will not be refused to any person within the jurisdiction of the Crown on the ground that he or she is an alien............................................................... 9 III. The writ of habeas corpus is a flexible remedy adaptable to changing circumstances.
    [Show full text]